Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
“The decline of ideologies, the revival of ideas,” is how the famous French political thinker Raymond Aron described the ideological configuration in the world divided into two warring blocs that came after the death of J. V. Stalin more than half a century ago. A similar picture could be observed several decades ago, when many of us witnessed large-scale changes that radically transformed the political map of Europe. With the collapse of” real socialism ” in the countries of Eastern and Central Europe and the collapse of the USSR, the Marxist-Leninist ideology, by which the ruling communist parties claimed their right to determine the fate of the countries and peoples under their control, became a thing of the past. At that time, the collapse of communism — that modernist ideology of Western origin — was seen as proof of the victory of Western liberal values. Many even dreamed of the imminent end of the course of history and the unification of all people into one universal republic of humanity, based on liberal-market principles. However, history has once again mercilessly shamed these presumptuous hopes. Liberals ' hopes that the global free market itself would be able to put all the dots on the “I” and make a single cosmopolitan civilization feasible in the future disappeared like smoke after September 11, 2001 and the global crisis of 2008-2011. Neoliberal market orthodoxy proved to be no less far removed from understanding the real course of affairs in the modern world than communist orthodoxy. By and large, there was nothing unexpected or extraordinary in this — it's just that many of the then rulers of doom poorly learned the lessons taught to us by history in the 20th century. In its early days, the liberals counted on the unifying and leveling dynamics of the world market, while the socialists counted on the international solidarity of the world proletariat as the main forces that would make it possible to overcome all individual differences, especially national and religious ones. However, both of these bets, both liberal and Marxist, were beaten during the “brief” (1914/1917-1991), if we consider it as a political episode, but rich in wars, revolutions and conflicts of the 20th century.
They were replaced by nationalism, which was repeatedly rejected and buried by both liberals and socialists during the 19th and 20th centuries, but always revived, like a “phoenix from the ashes” or “like the devil from a snuffbox” — that's what anyone wants — in a variety of forms and guises, not always the most pleasant and pleasing to the eye. So it happened this time. This once again demonstrated the immutability of nations as a fundamental political force of our time, and the nation-state as the main structural component of modern politics, first of all, of course, in the European context.
Another event in the same series is the revival of religion, which not only becomes the focus of the aspirations and hopes of millions of people around the world, but also invades the political sphere with power, turning into an instrument of mass political mobilization. There are many examples of radical Islam with its claims to create a global caliphate, fundamental Christian movements in the United States, and attempts to politically instrumentalize various versions of Orthodoxy in states that emerged from the ruins of the USSR.
Finally, one should not discount such ideological phenomena, which in the social and scientific knowledge of the 20th century were called “secular religions”. Despite the fact that most of them-especially fascism, national socialism and communism — lost their mobilizing potential in the same century and became the property of history, some of them, apparently, are destined for a great future, including in the form of strategic stakes in the ongoing struggle for the redistribution of spheres of influence in the modern world. In this case, it is not superfluous to mention that for all its pretensions to secularism and ostentatious indifference to questions of religious faith, Western liberal modernity, as the leading modern social theorist Charles Taylor rightly suggests, has its own religion, or rather a “secular religion” that places sacred “human rights”on a pedestal.
What kind of future does the revival of these national, religious and pseudo-religious ideas promise us in today's dynamically developing and at the same time shaken by new cataclysms of the 21st century? Today, history seems to be returning to the old rut, when conflicts and wars are fought not for abstract and universalistic ideologies, but for religions and for the fulfillment of national aspirations, for control over territories and natural resources. In these conditions, the search for new ideological guidelines, both in the form of theories and in the form of strategies that can help us not only understand the modern world, but also act in it, becomes more urgent than ever. By and large, we are talking about finding a new balance between the universal and the particular, about a new reconciliation between the general and the special in the rapidly changing world of the 21st century. And here much depends on the voice and responsibility of intellectuals, who can make their modest but irreplaceable contribution to ensuring that the revival of ideas that is taking place before our eyes does not eventually turn into a clash of forces driven by naked political and economic calculation.
Before we talk about a new ideology for a modern person, we need to understand in our intellectual exercises what, in principle, underlies the formation of consciousness in the individual as such. What is the source of his worldview, whether secular, theocratic or individualistic, when the classical ideological, spiritual and cultural models developed within the framework of conservatism, monarchism, traditionalism, fascism, socialism, communism and liberalism were unacceptable?
That is, the first thing that is needed is to understand that the modern worldview can become the last ideology only when, on the one hand, it acquires values that are independent of either historical time, that is, of time and space, and, on the other, the path is drawn. The path is not so much for preservation, but for a natural change and expansion of consciousness to its full maturity, and liberation from any identity.
The values that we follow today, that is, the totality of socio-political, ethnic, cultural, psychological, moral, spiritual and other attitudes that modern people live by, have simply turned into a worldview trash of unconsciousness and ignorance in us, trampling the spirit of freedom, depriving a person of reason in their awareness of themselves and the world.
However, first of all, it is necessary to understand why the values that humanity has served for centuries do not work now, which does not suit modern man. Moreover, it does not suit you subjectively, which is equivalent to immaturity of consciousness, but objectively. What makes a person-a product of a particular social system-unconsciously strive for changes that are difficult for him, or even simply impossible to accept?
Of course, the prerequisites for the dominance of reason in man and in societies are not yet ripe. And simply following the new values and dogmas proposed to a person, whether in the context of a new ideology, values and dogmas, no matter what sphere of activity and life they relate to, will not lead to anything good. We need the maturity of awareness, as an objective prerequisite for further growth and expansion of the possibilities of consciousness in us, in order to be aware, and not in order to consume.
That is, to respond to certain aspirations, moods, preferences, requests and needs that exist in society, as well as to think, having subdued your own ego, not about yourself, but about the ideals of society, will not only be not enough, but also harmful. Since it is impossible not to take into account that in a person subconsciously, that is, secretly from himself, the instinct (food, dominance, reproduction) dominates, implicated in the consumer worldview imposed on him by society, while the dominant role in this is the immaturity of his consciousness, since a person always remains unconscious to himself. And this means that he is tempted and tempted by his mind, by what is contained in it.
“…get away from Me, Satan! You are a temptation to Me, because you think not of what is divine, but of what is human.” Matthew 16: 23
Most people will NEVER wake up! And this is the Law!
It is the collective identity of the individual with the majority, as well as with the minority, that is the embodiment and support of the dyAYayay.the volitional will in us by the forces of a human being-a product of society, as the only source and carrier of insanity in itself.
And yet, it is precisely thanks to the human law, thanks to the collective identity, that man, until today, has somehow kept within the framework of culture and logos from completely disintegrating and falling to the level of only the instincts of his animal essence.
Logos, as the most profound, stable and essential structure of being, as the most essential regularity of the development of the world and society, reflected in the consciousness of a person who keeps him from falling to the level of a logeme, that is, a primitive perception of himself at the level of a person limited by the body.
Now we have entered the era of postmodernism, the total globalism of post-national and post-industrial liberal societies, as an era of degradation and collapse of developed national cultures and logos, and, above all, by liberating the individual from all forms of collective identity. Liberal ideology has become the dominant ideology on a planetary scale.
Oddly enough, this is exactly what caused the global geopolitical, economic, financial, socio-ethnic, environmental and spiritual crisis in the world. Back in the 20th century, Western modernist civilization, covering all the available space of the Earth, came close to the limits of its own growth and faced the prospect of not even a crisis, but a natural collapse.
As for the person himself and the policy of freeing him from all forms of collective identity, this is just a myth imposed by America and picked up by the West. In reality, civilizations do not need intelligent people, there will be no one to exploit. They need as many unintelligent people as possible, otherwise, who will go after those who only promise. The whole structure of society is built in such a way that only a small part of the population is exploited by billions of people.
Today it is becoming quite obvious that the basis of “progress”, “development” and “prosperity” of man and humanity as a whole is not so much his physical, but rather his spiritual (psychological, informational) exploitation of man, disguised as equality, tolerance and democratic freedoms of citizens.
Therefore, there is a total and widespread substitution of values on a global scale. Moreover, progress for the benefit of life is being slowed down, but technologies for enriching the minority are actively developing,which has simply become obvious. About two-tenths of the world's population owns approximately 27% of its national wealth. Globally (by life) and locally (by society and man), only that which declares itself in man, relying on this very support, is supported and provided.
In other words, no one can be given more than what is asked for (“Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.” Matthew 7: 7). But even this is subject to infringement and restrictions, because it may turn out and often turns out that you do not need it at all, since everything that life asks for must be a natural biological and spiritual need in a person. And this is important not so much for the one who can give it to you, but for the one who asks, because true satisfaction happens when there is a need for it. Only those who are hungry can get enough!
Hence, it is necessary to understand that the herd has no other guidelines for the account of its sheep, except for what they claim, no matter how banal it may sound. Therefore, a person dictates (what you sow is what you reap) to himself and society how he treats himself, although he demands no more than what can be offered to him, since no one knows what they want, because they do not know themselves.
I thank Mr. Dmitriev for his opinion,but I fundamentally disagree with him.
A new, modern ideology has already emerged and is gaining momentum, imperceptibly absorbing old cultures, traditional ways of life, religions and much more.
The new ideology is like a soft but destructive force.rapidly embracing humanity.
Its name is globalization.
Due to certain historical and cultural features, humanity was fragmented into numerous groups, tribes, and states. Each of these groups was distinguished from the others by many unique factors. Appearance, traditions, customs, and religious beliefs.
Later, they began to contact each other more closely, exchange,learn from each other,adopt what they like, etc. However, everyone was proud of their uniqueness.
Let's leave the perishable reflections on the origin and course of human development and look at the world today.
People,regardless of their distinctive characteristics,origin,traditions and customs, accumulate in Western countries and gradually assimilate, adopting the positive features of the local population.
Once completely different from each other,for example, Germans and Chinese, Arabs and Brazilians, Indians and Russians, today behave the same. They obey the same rules,gradually forget and abandon their national characteristics, turning into a single society.
All the past ideologies about the origin, rich culture and history, religious dogmas fade into the background. As one of the heroes of the little-known movie “No one believes in this shit anymore” said.
It turns out that completely different people can exist in close proximity to others, and quite comfortably and happily. All outdated points of view are dying out and humanity is rapidly merging into a single society.
Of course, there are opponents of this phenomenon,there are people with their own point of view,there are those who are ready to present new ways of developing society 3 times a day,but all this does not make sense.
In the very near future ( 100-150 years), we will all turn into a global society that will replace the religious component and live on the basis of state laws.
It is possible that with the development of technological progress, when a person will be able to subordinate robots to work for the benefit of humanity, and a person will have more rest and enjoy life, a different way of life and ideology will appear.
But for now, we are all moving towards a global, unified and complete society, a global society subject to common laws.